
.BI3 



SPEECH 



\^ 



OP 



E A23 
.B13 
Copy 



MR. BADGER, OF ^^ORTH CAROLIM, 



ON 'IHE 



SLAVERY a U E S T I O N. 




In Senate, March 18 and 19, 1850. 



-^h, 



The Senate having under consideration the i-esolution.s submitted by Mr. Clay — 

Mr. BADGER said: Mr. President, it is not surprisin;^, considering tlie sobject-matter of the reso- 
Iation.-3 submitted by tiie honorable Senator from Kentucky, (Mr. Clay,) that there should have been 
a warm, and even an excited debate, produced by them in this house. Nor is it surprising, con- 
sidering the variety of topics embraced in those resolutions, that there should have been a great diver- 
sity of sentiment among the members of this body. The delicate nature of the subject out of vi^hich 
these resolutions have grown — to which, directly or indirectly, they all relate — furnishes abundant ex- 
cuse, if not justification, for the large amount of excited feeling, and warmth, and animation of dis- 
cussion, here and elsewhere. I do not rise, Mr. President, with a view of saying any thing which 
shall tend to aggravate excitement, or at all to lessen the prospect.s of an amicable accommodation of 
the various matters in dispute, pending between the ditferent portions of this country. On the con- 
trary, v/hile I shall express, with plainness and sincerity, the views which I entertain, I shall en- 
deavor to avoid saying any thing which can give ju-st offence. In the remarks which I shall submit 
to the .Senate, I shall endeavor to cultivate in myselt", and, so far as depends upon me, in others, that 
spirit of mutual concession, compromise, and kind feeling, in which the Union of the States originated, 
and by cultivating which alone can it he preserved. 

There can be no question that the subject under the consideration of the Senate is vastly important. 
It is, iii my judgment, as important as the value of the Union; and for tlie estimate of that value, I my- 
self possess no adequate powers of computation. For us, as a people, its value is, indeed, inestim- 
able. When, therefore, questions are moved here which do, either directly or indirectly, involve 
the continuance of thi.s Union, and the maintenance of the form of government under which we live, 
I must consider them of such transcendanl importance as to be worthy of every exercise of the un- 
derstanding of every member of this body, and as demanding from us all the exercise of moderation, 
justice., care, and conciliation, in order to produce good and avoid evil. 

In the first place, I concur entirely in what has been so often said upon this floor, that there can be no 
peaceable separation of this Union. From the very nature of the case, from the character of our insti- 
tutions, from the character of our country, from the nature of Government itself, it is, in my judgment, 
impossible that there can be a peaceable separation of this Union. But if there could be, I agree en- 
tirely with the honorable Senator from Kentucky, tiiat the state of peace in which we sliould scjsarate 
must be speedily ended, must terminate in intestine conllicts, in wars, which, from the nature of the 
case, could know no amicable termination, no permaJient peace; but, until the superiority^ of one or of 
the other side in the conflict should be completely established, would admit of nothing but liollow 
truces, in which each might breathe from past exertions, and make preparations for future conflicts. 

Sir, the idea of a separation of these States into distinct confedericies was thought of, and considered, 
and spoken of, before the adoption of this Constitution. At the time that the question was before the 
American people, whether the constitution proposed by tiie convention should be adopted, it was then 
spoken of. Its probable, yea, certain, consec[uences, were referred to by the writers of that admirable 
series of papers denominated the "Federalist;"' and I beg the indulgence of the Senate while I read a very 
brief extract, conveying the views of those eminent men: 

" If tliese States should either be wholly disunited, or only united in partial confederacies, a man must be far gone in 
Utopian speculation who can seriously doubt that the subdivisions into which they might be thrown would have fre- 
quent and violent contests with each other . To presume a want of motives for such contests, as an argument against 
ineir existence, would be to forget that men are ambitious, vindictive, and rapacious. To look for a continuation of 
harmony Ipetween a numUer of independent, unconnected sovereignties, situated in the same neighborhood, would be to 
disregard the uniform course of human events, and to set at defiance the accumulated experience of ages.'" 

If this was a just view of the probable, the certain results of a separation of these States at that time, 
and under the then circumstances, I pray you, sir, upon what, at the present day, can we found a bet- 
ter hope." Then the States were fresh from the conflict of the revolutionary war. Then not only had 
they a lively remembrance of the contest in which they had fought, and in which they had gathered 
victory and honor together, but the leading men of that time were those choice spirits who had carried 
them through that recent conflict; who had established the independence of the country; and who ex- 
ercised an influer^e in public affairs proportioned to tlieir patriotism, their valor, and their wisdom. 
Then they might have separated without the same causes of hostility and alienation which ^nust exist 
in ajiy separation of these States at the present day. If we separate now, we do it with feelings of 

GiDEo:^ & Co., Printers. 



^^ 



3v^ 



mutual distrust and bitterness. We divide, not by common consent, as partners who can no longer 
carry on their joint business with mutual profit, each to pursue for his own separate advantage that 
course of business in which he thinks he can best succeed; but we part with the feelings of those who 
consider themselves mutually wronged. A sense of injustice and oppression rankles in the hearts of one 
portion of tlie new confederacies, and a sense, in the other, of defiance and indignity. 

Under such circumstances, " what can ensue," to borrow the language of the great English moralist, 
" but a continual exacerbation of hatred — an uncxtingui.shabic feud — an incessant reciprocation of mis- 
chief — a mutual vigilance to entrap and eagerness to destroy?" 

The question has been asked, what can the States do, supposing them to be divided — separated 
into distinct subdivisions, or independent sovereignties? Allow me to answer that question in the 
words of one of the most eminent men whom my State has ever produced: a man of clear and com- 
prehensive intellect, of a sound heart, and enlarged and ardent patriotism; who shed a glory around 
his native State, and wliose name is held in just veneration by ever)' one who acknowledges himself a 
North Carolinian. At another period of our history the same question was asked. In the years 1831 
and 1832, it had become an inquiry, a subject of disquisition in my own State, and the late Judge 
Gaston, in an address delivered in 1832 before the literary societies of the University, thus treats of the 
subject : 

" Threats of resistance, secession, separation, have become common as liouseliold words, in the wicked and silly vio- 
Iciicc of public declaiiners. The public ear i? familiarized, and tlie public mind will soon be accustomed to tlie detest- 
able suggestion of disunion. Calculations and conjectures — what may the East do without the South, and what may 
the South do without the East— sneers, menaces, reproaches, and recriminations, all tend to the same fatal end. What 
can the East do without life South? VVhat can the South do without the East? They may do much; they may ex- 
hibit to the curiosity of political anatomists, and the pity a id wonder of the world, the '• disjeda mcmhra''^ — the sunder- 
ed, Weeding limbs of a once gigantic body, instinct with life, and strength, and v.gor. They can furnish to the philoso- 
phic iiistorian another melancholy and striking instance of the political axiom, that all republican confederacies have an 
inherent and unavoidable tendency to dis-(jIution. They will present fields and occasions for border wars, for leagues 
and counter-leagues, lor the intrigues of petty statesmen, the strugL'les of military chiefs, for confiscations, insurrections, 
and deeds of darkest hue. Tliey will gladden the hearts of those who have proclaimed that men are not til to govern 
themselves, and shed a disastrous eclipse on the hopes of rational freedom throughout the world. Solon, in his code, 
proposed no punishment for parricide, treating it as an impossible crime. Such, with us, ought to be the crime of poli- 
ticul parricide— tile dismembermeutiH' our ' fatherland.' " 

To me, sir, these sentiments convey a just representation of what will be the future and unavoidable 
results of a separation of the people of this great country into distinct and independent confederacies. 
And when I look at the prospect before us, it is one so dark, filled with such liorrid 'forms of dread 
and cvi!, that 1 willingly close my eyes upon it, and desire to believe that it is impossible it should 
ever be realized. 

Now, Mr. President, if the evils rcsuhiiig from a dissolution of the Union be of the kind and mag- 
nitude wliich 1 have stated, is there any danger — have we any reason, in the present coniliuon of the 
country, to apprehend — that a dissolution may follow the action of the Congress of the United States 
upon the great questions before us? Is there a probability that such a result may follow any course 
which Consress may think proper to take — any decision to which they may come upon these vexed 
and haras.siui: questions? 1 am not, and never have been, and trust I never shall be, an alarmist. I 
look to the Union of these States as the palladium, not only of the general safety of the whole, but of 
the individual liberty of the several parts that coinpose it. I will not undertake to state, sir, what 
amounl of ha.''.ard we might encounter of some domestic convulsion : but that there is iTiore or less 
reason for apprehension— that there is danger, greater or less — no man doubts who attends to wliat he 
hears in this chamber, and v.-hat he sees throunhout the country. The most eminent men belonging 
to this body realize that we are in a situation which requires great skill and dexterity in tlie manage- 
ment of public measures ; that there is danger that this Union, though incapable of a peaceable sepa- 
ration — or, it" peaceably separated, incapable of luaintaining between the portions which composed it, 
for any lengtli of time, harmonious relations — may yet experience convulsions and violent separations. 
Whether the danger be greater or less — whether it be exaggerated on the one hand, or looked upon 
as too small upon the other — if there be any danger, however remote, any reason, however small, to 
fear such results, to a man with a patriotic heart it furnishes just the same ground of caution — ^just the 
same motive for forbearance — ;just the same ground for the exercise of care and diligence for our pre- 
servation, as if t:',e danger were immediate or the cause of fear great. We all retilizc this in the ordi- 
nary transactions of life. If a man has any reason to suppose, however remote the danger, that the 
liousc ill whi'-.h be is conceals a powder magazine beneath i', he does not wait to have demonstration 
of the fact before he takes measures for his security. In all human aftairs we arc obliged to act upon 
probable evidence, and to provide for probable contingencies, and to respect even the lowest degree of 
probability, in avoiding danger tuid securing safety. I care not whether there be more or less reason 
to think that a convulsion may be produced among the |ieople of the different sections of the Union 
by the manner in which these questions shall be decided by Congress ; if there be any danger, any 
ground of fear, as men of sense, as men of |iatriolism, as lovers of our country, we are lioitnu to the 
most anxious, earnest, persevering efibrts to secure the country. Entertaining these views upon the 
subject, and having stated what I believe to he the duly of us all, I profess now to act, and to be al- 
ways ready to act, upon the principle which I have stated as that which should govern our conduct. 

In what, Mr. President, have these difficulties their origin? They spring from one single source. 
They may multiply themselvc!!; they may assume various directions; they may govern and direct 
the conduct of individuals in various iiindcs; but the whole difficulty lies in slavery as its original and 
solo source. It is the existence of that institution in certain States of the Union, and the existence of 
that institution alone, which lias brought upon us the necessity of considering whether this Union is 
safe. Entertaining very clear and decided views u|)Oii the subject of that institution, and sentiments 



/ 






having been expressed with great confidence by many gentlemen, particularly by the Senator from New 
York, who sits on this side of the chamber, (Mr. Scward,) as to its nature and character, considered 
in a religious point of view — it having l)een assumed as a matter of course that that institution itself is 
utterly opposed to the spirit and law'of Christianity, and that it must be taken to be in itself morally 
evil, evil altogether, and to be tolerated only where we have no power to pui it down, I beg leave, 
though not exactly germane to the political discussion, to submit to the Senate a brief inquiry Into the 
correctness of this view. 1 maintain, and shall endeavor to establish, that whether the institution of 
slavery be considered as an evil or not, it, is not a sin. It is not in itself a violation of the Divine law. 

It; was said by the honorable Senator from Massachusetts, in the noble and able speech which he 
delivered the other day, that that institution had existed from the earliest times: that the first writers 
of history found it existing; that, in the theocratic government of the Jews, no disapprobation of it 
was expressed ; and that, under the Gospel dispensation, no injunction agaitasi it is to be found. That 
is the truth, sir, but it is not all the truth! It is clear that this institution, which we find existing in 
the world before and at the commencement of the Jewish theocracy, not only was not disapproved 
of, but was expressly recognised, approved, and its continuance sanctioned by the Divine Lawgiver of 
the Jews. 

Why, Mr. President, if we disabuse our minds of the influence of previous opinions, and under- 
take to inquire whether the divine law of charity condemns the institution of slavery ; and if in this 
inquiry we subordinate our own judgments to the teachings of the Divine Lawgiver himself, there can 
be little doubt as to tbe result at which we must arrive : and it will be that which I have stated. But 
we may adopt a different mode of conducting the inquiry — may allow some inward impulse or feeling 
to give interpretation to the great law of charity, and set up our own speculations to regulate our 
judgment of its force and application. We may thence be led to conclude that the institution of slavery 
is utterly unlawful : but in so doing we present a melancholy instance of the human interpreter setting 
himself in direct opposition to the practical commentary which the Divine Lawmaker has given upon 
his own law. 

Now, sir, I find in the 2,5th chapter of Leviticus this passage: 

"And i!' ihy brother that dwtlleth by thee bo waxen poor, and lie sold unto thpe, thou ?halt not compel him to gerre 
as a bond servant; but as a hired servant, and a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall .-^orve thee unto the year of 
jubilee; and then shall he depart from thee, both he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own Camily, 
and unto the possession of his father* shall he return. For they are my servants, which I brought forth out of the land 
of Egypt ; they shall not bo sold as bondmen. Thou shalt not' rule over him with rigor but shaJt fear thy Cod. Both 
thy bondmen and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall hc^ of the heathen that are rnuint about you; of thera 
shall ye haij hov.dmcn atid bondmaids. Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them 
shall ye biiy, and of their families thai are with yon which they begat in your land; and they shall be your possession. 
And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after yon^ to inherit them for a jiossession; they shall be your 
bondmen forever; but over your brethren, the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigor." 

This is one among the many direct, positive, authoritative approvals by God himself of the institu- 
tion of slavery, existing at the time of the .Tewish theocracy. It i.s not a mere toleration, a mere for- 
bearance to jirohibit, but an express permission to the Israelites, whom He condescended to govern in 
the stead of a human ruler, to purchase of the surrounduig nations and of strangers among them slaves, 
and to hold them as an inheritance forever. 

Slavery, Mr. President, was found, as mentioned by the honorable Senator fronti Massaclmsetts, an 
existing institution at the time of the Gospel dispensation, and was spread throughout the earth. What 
treatment did it receive from the foundei-s of that Gospel dispensation .' It was approved — first nega- 
tively, and then positively. First negatively, because, in the whole New Testament there is not to be 
found one single word, either spoken by our Saviour or by any of the Evangelists or Apostles, in which 
that institution is either directly or indirectly condemned. And also affirmatively. To show this I desire 
to call the attention of the Senate to two or three passages from the epistles of St. Paul, and to brin" 
them forward, not with a comtnentary of my own, but with a brief commentary from one of the best 
men that ever lived, as well as one of the most learned divines, who spent his life between the years 
1721 and 1799 in the kingdom of Scotland, who never set his fool upon soil where there was a slave, 
and never .saw a slave. He gives liis opinions in a most able work, entitled "A New Transla- 
lation. Commentary, and Notes upon the Epistles" — not any hasty production, but the result of thirty 
years of his life expended upon this subject, which it is said was five times written over by his own 
hand before its publication. I allude to the celebrated Dr. McKnight, of the established Presbyterian 
church of Scotland. 

In his introduction to the sixth chapter of the first epistle to Timothy, he thus expresses himself: 

"Because the law of IVtoses (E.vod -31, 2-2) allowed no Israelite to be made a slave for life wiUiout hi-: own con- 
sent, the .hidaizing teachers, to allure slaves to their party, taught that, under the Gospel, likewise, involuntary slavery 
is unlawful. This doctrine the apostle condemned here, as in his other epislk-s, (1 Cor. 7, 20, 21, 23; Col. 3, -H,) by 
enjoining Christian slaves lo honor and obey their masters, whether they were believers or unbelievers, (verses 1, 2;) 
and by assuring Timothy that if any person taught otherwise he opposed the wholesome precepts of Jesus Christ and 
the doctrine of the Gospel, which is in all points conformable to godliness or sound morality, (verse 3,) and was puffed 
up with pride, without possessing any true knowledge eithei of the Jewish or of Uie Christian revelation, (verse 1.)" 

The passage in the epistle referred to by Dr. McKnight is in these words ; 

"Let as many seivants as are under ilie yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and 
his doctrine hi not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let Uieni not despise them, because tliey are 
brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. 'J'hese things 
teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord 
Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing, hut dotins atioiit ques- 
tions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt 
minds, and destitute ol the truth, supposing that gain is godliness; from such withdraw thyaeUV 

On this he has the folio wins: note : 



•By ordering Timotliy to teach slaves to continue with and obey iheir masters, the apostle haih showed that llie- 
Christian rrlision neither alters men's ranlt in life nor abolishes any right to which they are entitled by the law of na- 
ture, or by the law of the country where they live. Insiearl of encou'ragins; slaves to "disobedience, the Gospel makes 
them more faithful and conscientious. And by sweetening the temper of masters, and inspiring thein wiih benevotence, 
itrenderstlio eomtition of slaves more tolerable than formerly; for, in proportion as masters imbibe tlie true spirit of 
the Gospel, they will treat their slaves with humanity, and even give them their freedom, when their services merit 
such a favor." 

I ask the attention of the Senate to a brief passage from tlie sixtli chapter of the Ephesian.s. It is 
in these words : 

" Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and tremblim;, in sinaleness of 
your heart, as unto Christ; not with eye-service, as men pleaseis, but as the servants of Christ, doiii^ the will of God 
from the heart; with good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to man : knowing that whatsoever good thing any 
man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or I'ree." 

The passage is thus paraphrased by Dr. McKnightin his Commentaries: 

"As the gospel does not cancel the civil rights of inankind, 1 say to bond servants, obey your masters, who have the 
properly of your body, with fear and trembling, as liable to be punished by them for disobedience : obey also from the 
iotegrily of j'our own disposition, as obeying Christ ■' 

'< Do this not merely when their eye is on you, or thi'V are to e.vamine your work, as those do whose sole care is tc 
please men ; but as bondmen of Christ, doing the will of God in this matter from the soul — that is, diligently. 

" With cheerfulness do your duty to yotir earthly masters, as servants to the Lord Christ ; for, in serving them faith- 
fully, ye serve him ; and therefore do not consider yourselves as servants to men only. And that ye may be supported 
under the hardships of your lot recollect what your religion teaches you, thai whatever good action any man does, for 
that, though he should receive no reward from men, he shall receive at the judgment a reward from Christ, whether he 
be a slave or a freeman." 

I will trouble the Senate with one more quotation. It is from the third chapter of Collossians : 

'• Servants, ob"y in all things your masters accordintr to the flesh ; i!ot with eye-service, as men pleasers, but in sin- 
gleness of heart, tearing God : and whatsoever ye do, do if heartily, a- to the Lord, and not unto inen ; knowing that of 
the Lord ye shall reef ive the reward of the inheritancf, for ye serve the Lord Clni^t. But he that doetli wioiig shall 
receive for the wrong which he hath done, and there is no respect of persons."' 

Dr. iMcKni2;ht explains this passage in the following note : 

^ "Though the word (Joii'os properly signifies a slave, our Engli^h translators, in all the places where tJie duties of 
slaves are inculcated, have justly translated it servant; because anciently the Greeks and Romans had scarce any ser- 
vants but slaves, and because the duties of the hired servant, during the time of his service, ate the same with those of 
the slave. So that what the apostle said to llie slave was, in effi^ct, said to the hired servant. Upon these principles, 
in translations of the Scriptures designed for countries where slavery is abolished and servants are freemen, the word 
dotUos may, with truth, be translated a servant. In this, and the parallel passage, (Ephesians, 6, 5,) the apostle is very 
Pftrlicular in his pri^cepts to slaves and lords ; because, in all the countries where slavery was established, many of the 
slaves were e.vceediiigly addicted to fraud, lying, and stealing ; and many of the masters were tyrannical and cruel to- 
their slaves. Perhaps, also, he was thus particular in his precepts to slaves because the Jews held perpetual slavery to 
be unlawful, and because the Judaizing teachers propagated that doctrine in the church. But from the apostle's pre- 
cepts it may be iiilerred that if slaves are justly aci]uired, they may ho lawfully retained, as the Gospel does not make 
v»id aay of the jjolitical tights of mankind." 

Now, sir, the ins^^titution which existed at the time when Christianity was proclaimed w.is thus re- 
cognised as lasvful. It was proper slavery, perpetual slavery, a servitude for life, with the obligation 
of servitude trani?mitted to descendants ; and permit me to say it wa.s a slavery far more hard, far more 
liable to reproach, iar more deserving condemnation, than any thin? that has ever existed in this conn- 
try. It was a slavery in which the master had the power of life and death over his slave. It was a 
slavery in which bodily hardship was imposed upon the slaves of a kind and in a degree totally un- 
known in any State of this Republic. The nu'al slaves often worked in chains, and were u.suidly turned 
at night into one common receptacle, in which each had his cell, and there detained until they were 
prepared to resume the labors of the following day. It was a .slavery in which the domestic servants 
were subject to every species of exaction from hard and tyranni.-al masters, whose hearts had not been 
softened by the benignant influences of Christianity ; and of these domestics they who probably had 
the hardest lot were the tire-womon, who waited upon the Roman ladies, and who often received the 
severest treatment for any want of skill and dexterity in arranging the hair and dresses of their lovely 
but fastidious mistresses, so as to display their charms to the greatest advantage. 

So Christianity found this institution. It took it u|i as an existing relation of lite. It denounced all 
oppression and cruelty, and inculcated justice, forbearance, and humanity from the master to the slave. 
It demanded fidelity and o!)edience from the slave to the master. It recognised, expressly, that the 
master and the slave might, without reproach, be both member.s of the same church; that believing 
masters might have believing slaves ; and it enforced their relative duties to each other upon Gf^spel 
principles. Why was it left to exist in the chtircli, if wrong in itself.' There was no difficulty at all 
about emancipation. The restraints upon emancipation were few, and ajiplied only to special cases. 
The principal were the prohibition to emancipate to the injury of creditors, tht; restriction of emanci- 
pation by testament, beyond a certain number or proportion, and the provision that emancipation by 
poracms under twenty years of age should be sanctioned by certain re-spectable otficial persons. Such 
■vrere the chief restrictions upon emancipation at the epoch of the Christian revelation. 

Nothing could be easier than for St. I'aul to have said, "Slaves, be obedient to your heathen mas- 
ters; but I say to you, believing masters, emancipate your slaves: the law of Christ is au^ain!"<t that re- 
lation, and you are bound, therefore, to set thorn at liberty." No such word is spoken. From that day 
down, the church acted upon precisely the same principle, both before and after the empire became 
Christum; the emperors from tiine to time (especially the Christian en»pcrors) interposing by laws for 
the purpose of preventing oppression and injustice to slaves; and the church, by her ex-coinmunica- 
liona, atVording a restraint against barbarous u.sajc on the part of Christian masters. 

Now, Mr. President, having an in.stilution among us so ancient, .so sanctioned, surely it cannot be 



f 



that it is, in itse'.f, utterly unlawful anil irreconcilable with the spirit and teachings of our divine reli- 
gion. I cannot conceive', after considering; the writings of the apostles and the continued practice of 
the church, from its earliest ami purest times, which recognise slavery as a lawful institution, and en- 
force the duties growing out of it upon both master and slave, how we, who now hold slaves, are to be 
put beyond the charities of our race as oppressors and robbers. No, sir ; no, sir. We stand upon 
higher and better ground. We justify no injustice, cruehy, or hardship. We claim that we have 
just rights, recognised by the religion we profess, as well as by the laws of the country in which we live; 
and that, for the" possession and just use of them, we should incur no reproach here, and we hope we 
shall incur none hereafter ; though we freely admit that the trust confided to us is a high and an im- 
portant one; that, for the manner in which we discharge it, we must give an account hereafter, not 
because we possess or exercise autliority — that is right; that is proper; that is not anti-religious — but 
for having been faithless, if faithless we'shall be found, to the great duties which the Gospel inculcates 
as to the mode in which that authority is to be used, and the just restraints to be laid upon it. 

I have not made these remarks because I suppose that they will produce conviction upon the minds 
of gentlemen who take opposite views, nor do I suppose that such conviction can be produced ; but 1 
wish those gentlemen to understand that we do not stand in the attitude of flagrant robbers and oppres- 
sors, who have no cpyarenl reason and justification for our conduct. To my mind the lawfulness of 
this institution, in the Christian point of view, is clear, demonstrable, demonstrated. Gentlemen may 
say, "We do not agree ; we have the idea that that great law of charity which says, ' do unto others 
as you would that others should do unto you,' forbids you to hold a slave." He who gave that law 
of charity under the Old Testament, and who explained and enforced it under the New, did not declare 
such a judc;ment ; and, therefore, what I want to deduce and enforce is, that the utmost th.it cau be 
said by our Northern friends is, that this is a case not free of difficulty, in which difference of opinion 
may, without just offence, be entertained ; and hence that no unkind feeling, no prejudice, should re- 
sult, because we take a view of this subject which does not meet their approbation. 

Mr. President, in these excited times it is very difficult to gel a calm and quiet consideration of any- 
thing connected with this subject. My attention is almost daily arrested by misrejiresentations with 
regard to legal enactments subsisting in the Southern States of this Union, and with i>egard to the mo- 
tives which have dictated these enactments. It would seem as if men were so carried away by the 
impulses ffrowing out of this a2;itating subject, that they lose all charitable consideration for the mo- 
tives of others, and are ever prompt to suppose ihat whatever is done is done for a wrong end, or under 
a wrong impulse. Now, I deem it proper, though at other times such matters would not be worthy 
of any consideration, to notice one or two misrepresentations with regard to my own State, of whose 
laws I happen to know somethins:, as well as of the habits and character of her inhabitants. I do this, 
because every thing which impresses upon the general mind of our Northern fellow-citizens that we 
are a heartless, exacting, unjust, merciless race of people, has a most unhappy effect upon their dispo- 
sition and feelings towards iis, and induces expressions from them towards us which react upon our 
minds; and thus is continually fomenting and increasing those sources of disquiet and alienation, which 
every patriot must regret, and should desire to remove. 

1 saw the other day, accidentally, in taking up a newspaper, a note appended to a speech deUvered 
in another place. In this note I found these pas.^ages : 

" Note by Mr. M.kss. — On repairins to tiie Law Library, to a^cetwia which p.irty was right in reK-anl to ihf above 
(iiffereiice ot' opinion, the second hook I opentd coiitaineil at least three cases wliere {ho coutlswcTe auU^orizi'tl tosea- 
tence a slave to be transported tor the commission of an otfence for which a white man must be unconciitionally hung. 
(Sec North Carolina Rev. Stat., vol. 1, chap. Ill, ^§ 36, 37, 39.) Of course the reason oflliis difference is the pecuniary 
value oflhe slave. Hiin!», he would be worthless ; transported to Cuba, he might bring live hundred d(dliMs.'" 

" But laws which punish 'si.x or eight,' or 'eight or ten,' or any other number of offences with death, when commil- 
ted by slaves, while the same offences receive a milder penalty when conunitted by whites, or laws denyini; the ben- 
efit of cler),'y (where that relic of barbarism still prevails) to a slave, while it is -ji anted to a white man, are surely 
among the greatest atrocities recorded in the history of the race." 

Now, sir, I would not be willing to suppose the gentleman who penned these paragraphs capable of 
wilfully misrepresenting an individual, much less the whole people of a State; but so carried away is he 
by this subject, that hedoes not perceive that his " of course,''^ in the first pa.ssage, manifests a most 
uncharitable disposition; and he does not perceive that what he says in the second paragraph is in di- 
rect conflict and inconsistency with the first. If the legislature of a Southern State permits a slave to 
be transported for an offence for which a white man is put to death, "Oh," it is said, "here is de- 
testable avarice, sacrificing justice to money." And if the slave is .put to death, and not the white 
man, " Here is an instance of the greatest atrocity that ever disijraced the legislation of tnankind.' 
Now, with regard to this "ofcour.se," I do not choose that rny Stale shall lie under the imputation of 
being influenced in affixing punishment by the mere value of the slave as property. The oflences re- 
fei-red to in the statute, cited in this note, are conspiracies, rebellions, insurrections. Thelaw of North 
Carolina, like I suppose the law of every other country, carefully avoids, in regard to offences which 
ordinarily implicate a large number of individuals, the horrid spectacle of indiscriminate slaughter, and 
thei-efore authorizes the court in these cases to affix either the punishment of death or transportation. 
If liie gentleman lirtd been solicitous not to overstate the ca.se, he would, before making this graia 
chai-geof sacrificing the principles of justice to the base calculations of pelf, have looked a Utile fur-, 
ther into the origin of this law, and he would then have discovered that, in the preamble of the original 
act, omitted in the revisal, the motive is set out which is to avoid an unnecessary shedding of blood, 
by enabling the courts, after a sufficient example has been made, to give sentence of transportation 
only. The purpo.-^e, therefore, is evident-, in the first place, to punish with death the leaders, those 
who stir up and foment the insurrection, and wiih a just consideration and humanity to withdraw that 
penalty from subordinates in guilt, while the safety of the State is consulted by removing them out of 



the United States. And if the gentleman who wrote this note had not skipped over, in his citation,. 
the 38th section of the same revised statute, he would have found the extreme care which tiie legisla- 
ture took to avoid any hasty conviction of slaves charged with such ollences. The legislature knew 
it was a subject upon wliich the public mind was likely to become excited : and tiiat section provides 
that where the testimony of blacks shall be received, for the purpose of conviotinsr the slave, such testi- 
mony shall not be deemed sufficient, unless it is supported by other and pregnant circumstances, uniting 
to produce conviction of guilt to the minds of thejury who may have charge of the offender. No, sir; 
no such motive exists as the writer of this note supposes. And the reason why in my State that par- 
ticular offence is punished inflexibly by death to the white man is obvious. A white man who joins 
in such an insurrection stands without excuse, and is necessarily a ring leader. He is a person not 
imposed upon, but imposing upon others; and the legislature wisely and justly determined that no 
discretionary modification of the punishment should be left in regard to him, when engaged in such an 
insurrection against the peace and lives of the commujiity. But, sir, the whole legislation of my State 
— I do not mean to distinguish between that and other Southern States ; I speak of her, because I know 
what her laws are — is marked by the extremest care for the lives of those slaves who are unfortunate 
enough to be charged with capital offences. They are tried by the same tribunal that tries the white 
man. They have aright to counsel, if not retained by the owners, assigned by the court. They have 
a right to challenge thirty-five jurors peremptorily, and to be assisted in these challenges by their coun- 
sel. They can ajipeal to tlie Supreme Court ; and, in order to give them the largest security that is 
attainable against improper influences, and the benefit of every safeguard against improper conviction, 
while any freeholder is competent to sit upon the trial of myself for my life and death, no freeholder, 
who is not also a slaveholder, is a competent juror to ]jass upon the life of a slave. 

Now, Ml'. President, I wish it to be distinctly understood— it is for that purpose I have brought this 
subject forward ; it is for that purpose I have noticed the note to which I have called the attention of 
the Senate — that the inference drawn from our legislation, as well as from detached expressions and 
incidental observations contained in law reports, to which I alluded the other day, are very well calcu- 
lated to mislead the mind, and to produce very unjust, and, consequently, unfavorable, impressions as 
to the state of the public mind in the southern country in regard to the slaves who are subject to our 
control. 

Permit me just to read a marginal note of a case decided in North Carolina, no longer ago than the 
month of .Tune last, where a slave was charged with the murder of a white man, and had been con- 
yicted of that offence in a court of law. His case was brought to the Supreme Court upon excejitions 
to the judge's charge below, and the judgment was reversed, and a new trial granted. This is the 
marginal note, stating the jirniciple laid down by the Supreme Court : 

" If a while man waiUonly inflicts upon a slave, over whom he has no authority, a severe blow, or repeated blows, 
under unusual circumstances, and the slave ai the instant strikes and kills, without evincing, by the means used, great 
wickedness or cruelly, he is only guilty of manslaughter, giving due weight to motives of policy and the necessity for 
subordination. 

"The same principle of extenuation applies to the beaten slave's comrade or friend, who is present, and instantly 
kills the assailant, without, in like niannei, by the means used, evincing great wickedness or cruelty." 

Now, 1 think I may safely challenge the world to show a more tender consideration for the jiassions 
and feelings of a human being than is manifested by tiiat wise, moderate, and just rule which the Su- 
preme Court has laid down, by which the life of an unfortunate slave was saved, who, smarting under 
gross ill-treatment, had upon the instant taken the life of a white man, and with a weapon likely to 
kill. Sir, we ought to understand, I wish our northern friends to undei-stand, that in dealing with this 
subject they are not dealing with inhuman relations of society existing among a savage people, but 
with an institution existing in a Christian land, in which slaves are ruled by Christian masters, in 
which their condition is mitigated by the operation of the principles of Christianity, atid therefore there 
should l)e no state of mind among our friends at the North, founded upon another and mistaken sup- 
position unjust to us, and which, at this particular juncture, is calculated to produce very mischievous 
results. 

But then, sir, slavery must be remembered and looked at in another point of view. It is with us a 
"fixed fact;'' the origin of it is a matter of no sort of importance in the inquiry how this subject is to 
be dealt with. In the origin of African slavery here, as far as legislative action is concerned, we have 
a common complaint against the mother country, before our revolution. As far as individual conduct 
ifi concerned, the only difference lietween ourselves and the North is, that their ancestors brought slaves 
to ours, and ours purchased tiiem of theirs. Here they are — three millions of them. They cannot be 
removed; they cannot be emancipated. Here they must be; here they must continue as slaves. 
Whether it is tlcsirablc in itself that they should continue or not as slaves, is a matter of no importance 
to determine, because it is impo.ssible that tiie two races can co-exist under any other relations than 
those which now subsist between them. It is no crime against humanity to maintain these relations ; 
for I defy the wit of any man to point out any change in the general relation of the slave population in 
the South iiy which their condition would not be rendered vastly worse, their happiness diminished, 
their hardships increased, tiieir t'ood and clothing lessened, and their condition made in, every respect in- 
tolerable. We must, then, be permitted to do the best we can. If tiiere be wrong'in the slaves being 
among us, it is a wrong for which we are no more responsible than our northern brethren. We will 
not go back again to cast reproach upon the ancestors of either; but in the actual bringing of the Afri- 
otn race here, in the planting of them upon our soil in a state of bondage, theirs were just as much in- 
Tolved in the offence, if offence it was, as ours. 

Well, then, Mr. President, the question ari.ses — for it is to this particular purpose that I make these 
wmarks — what is it that we have a right to ask of our northern and northwestern friends and fellow- 



citizens, in reference to the subject of slavery? Being an existing institution, being sucli a o)ie as I 
have described it — it being absolutely necessary and inevitable, so far as any human legislation can be 
brought to bear, or any human foresight is able to discover, that it must continue — what have we a 
right to ask from our northern friends ? 

In the first place, we have a right to ask an effectual bill for the recapture of fugitive slaves. That 
must lie at the foundation of any pacification of feeling between the North and the Soutli. Without 
it, every attempt to settle the agitating question will be as insecure and tottering as a house built with- 
out a suitable foundation. This is a claim of right ; this is a demand founded upon the Constitution; 
this is not a matter of question or debate. If there is any thing in the Constitution free from doubt, 
difficulty, or dispute, it is that that instrument gives us a right to have our fugitives surrendered to us. 
If the Constitution gives that right, it gives us, as a necessary consequence of it, a right to demand an 
effectual bill to carry out the designs of the Constitution promptly, and, as far as human means will 
avail, certainly. 

Now, Mr. President, I desire to say something upon the subject of this bill — what it should be, 
what is the remedy which we have a right to ask, and which the Constitution guaranties to us. 

In the first place, I remark that the framers of the Constitution designed to carry out this principle 
— upon which this part of the Constitution was founded — that, although the States existed under sep- 
arate organizations, they should still be considered as one to this purpose; that each should repose en- 
tire and absolute confidence in the integrity and capacity of the judicial tribunals and legislation of every 
Other State to administer justice in regard to all its citizens and subjects ; and, therefore, that, both with 
regard to fugitives from service and fugitives from justice, there should be an imperative obligation to 
restore the respective fugitives to the jurisdiction from which they escaped, and make them amenable 
in every resjject to the determination of that jurisdiction ; that the two cases stand upon the same foun- 
dations, and were intended to be governed by the same principles. 

The provision of the Constitution as to fugitives from justice is in these words: 

"A person cliaigeil in anj- State wiUi treason, Itlony, or other crime, who sliall flee from justice, and be found 
in anoUier Slate, rhall, on demand of the Executive authority of the Slate from which he Hed, be delivered up, to be 
removed to the State having jurisdiction of llie crime." 

"Who shall flee from justice." But an innocent man fleeing from prosecution commenced on false 
ground, maliciously prosecuted, or to be tried by an arbitrary tribunal, is not, in a strict and proper 
sense, fleeing from justice; yet, within the meaning of the Constitution, he flees from justice who, 
being charged with treason, felony, or other crime in a State of the Union having jurisdiction of the 
subject, leaves the State to avoid a trial. The meaning of the Constitution was, that that jurisdiction 
shall be taken to have the capacity and integrity to determine justly; and therefore when he flees from 
it, whether in fact guilty or innocent, he is to be treated as a fugitive from Justice. 

As to fugitives from service, the Constitution provides thus: 

"No person held to service 6r labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in conse- 
queace of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim 
of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." 

The two cases are in principle precisely similar. The fugitive from justice is to be delivered up to 
the Executive, who represents, in external transactions, the justice of the State; the fugitive from 
labor is to be delivered up on the claim of him to whom such labor may be due, and each is to be re- 
turned to that jurisdiction to which he is properly amenable; and the question whether one is guilty, 
or the other is rightfully a slave, is not a question to be transferred to the jurisdiction in which the 
fugitive may be found. 

This, Mr. President, was the view of those who passed the act of 1793, In the first place, that act 
of 1793 includes, under the same statute, provisions in respect to both of these cases. In the next 
place, it authorizes the delivering up of the fugitive from justice, upon the transmission of evidence to 
show that he has been duly charged in the State from which he escaped, and to whose justice he 
ought to be amenable. And, in regard to a fugitive from labor, it authorizes the master, his agent, or 
attorney, "to seize or arrest such fugitive," take him or her before any one of the officers named in 
the act, and upon satisfactory proof, either oral or by affidavit, &c., the officer is to give a certificate 
to the claimant, his agent, or attorney, "i«/iieft shall be svfficient lumrant for removing the said fugitive 
from labor to the State or Territory from which he or she flecf' — not, shall be sufficient proof that the per- 
son delivered up is a slave or owes the labor to the claimant — not, shall settle, or determine, or adjudi- 
cate the question. No; that question is open, to be settled by the jurisdiction of the State from which 
he escapes. To that he is to be returned. There, if he is wrongfully detained in slavery, he must 
make his appeal to the proper tribunals. According to the provisions of the Constitution of the 
United States, as recognised in this statute, it is to their justice and their impartiality the whole must 
be confided. And, Mr. President, it was all important that such a provision should be made. We 
know well that foreign States are not in the habit of surrendering fugitives from justice or from labor. 
Each State seems to have considered itself benefited, as its neighbor was injured, by its receiving, 
countenancing, and entertaining fugitives from justice; and when a slave escaped, as the law which 
recognised slavery was strictly territorial in its operation, of course the State or Government to which 
he escaped denied the right to reclaim the fugitive. It was, therefore, indispensable to the formation 
of our Constitutional Union that there should be introduced a provision by which the ordinary prac- 
tice and doctrine of States in regard to both of these cases should be reversed — a provision by which 
the domestic question should be left to the domestic tribunal — should not be transferred to another 
jurisdiction, by the escape of the individual, but should in every case be submitted to the proper do- 
mestic jurisdiction, by returning the fugitive, whether the claim upon him should be for justice or for 
service. 



8 

It was said by the honorable Senator from New York, (Mr. Seward,) thdt this was a compact in 
the Constitution to he executed only by the States. Now, whether it was a compact to be executed 
by the States or not, is a question not distinctly open for our consideration at this day. 

In the first place, I do not agree in the opinions which I have heard expressed by the most emment 
o-entlemen, that the Supreme Court of the United States has committed an error m supposmg the 
mrisdiction was in Congress. Certainly those who pa.ssed the act of 1793 thought that they had 
jurisdiction over it; and the Supreme Court of the United States have determined that Congress has 
jurisdiction over it. It is, theref >re, no more a compact between the States than any other portion of 
'the Constitution is a compact The Consiiiution forms a government. The legislative power of that 
government rests here, and it is for Congress to give eflect to every provision of the Constitution 

requiring legislative action. .,,,■,., r. 

Again, the Senator from New York said that the slave States mduced legislation by Congress- 
referring' to the act of 1793. Now, Mr. President, I did not exactly like that phrase: that the slave 
States, or the representatives from States owning slaves, h;ui, in some way or other, prevailed upon 
Congress to transcend its power, with some view or other. Why, sir, there is no authority upon 
earth for saying so. The act of 1793 was approved upon the I2th of February m that year. It was 
durino- the secolid Congress.held under the Constitution. It was Just at the close of the Congress 
held itnder the rule of representation fixed in the Constitution itself, and before the new modelling of 
the representation under the then first taken census, when this body, if I recollect aright, consisted of 
sixty-three members. Now, I have taken the pains to look a little into this matter, and 1 find that 
this bill passed in the Senate of the United Slates apparently without contest. A division was not 
made; the yeas and nays were not taken; and' there appears to have been a general and universal ac- 
quiescence in the propriety of the measure. Ifind that among the members of the Senate at that time' 
were the following gentlemen, who had- been members of the convention that framed the Constitution 
of the United Stales; John Langdon, of New Hampshire; Roger Sherman of Connecticut; Rufus 
King, of New York; Robert Morris, of Pennsylvania; George Head and Richard Basset, of Delaware: 
Pierce Butler, of South Carolina; and William Few, of Georgia— certainly I may be permitted to say 
a collection of highly respectable names— names of eminence before the country. In the House of 
Representatives the bill was passed upon the yeas and nays, and the vote stood, 48 yeas and 7 tiays. 
Of those voting, who were members of the convention who framed the Constitution, were: Nicholas 
Oilman, of New Hampshire; Jonathan Dayton, of New Jersey; Thomas Fitz^simmons, of Pennsyl- 
vania; Hugh Williamson, of North Carolina; and. Abraham Baldwin, of Georgia. And it is reniark- 
able that every individual who had been a member of the convention that framed the Constitution, 
and was a member of the House of Representatives" at that time, who voted at all, voted for the bill, 
and not a single one of then» is to be found among the small number of seven who voted against the 
bill. Those seven were: Messrs. Livermore, of New Hampshire; Thatcher, of Massachusetts; 
Sturges, of Connecticut; Niles, of Vermont; Treadwell, of New York; Mercer, of Maryland; and 
Parker, of Virginia. • • j • u 

Thus, .sir, we have this act passed at this early period, the passage of which was participated in by 
this considerable nuniber of gentlemen who had been members of the Convention, every one con.cur- 
rino- in its passage in the Senate, without a division, and with a very small minority of opponents in 
the'^House of Representatives. Now, if any thing can fix the meaning of this Constitutional provi- 
sion, it is certainly fixed by this bill. Upon the face of the Constitution, this act of surrendering fugi- 
tives' from labor is associated with the delivering up of fugitives from justice, provided for in the same 
o-eneral terms— the difierence in the phraseology to be entirely accounted for from the minute differ- 
ence in the subject matter; acted upon as such in 1793 by both Houses of Congress, and that act 
never repealed, nor complained of except as, from subsequent events, it has become inefficient to ac- 
com[ilish 'he end proposed. • r i ' -txr 

But. Mr. President, we have carried this matter of delivering up fugitives still further. We 
have made extradition treaties with foreign Powers; we made one with England in 1842 — the cele- 
brated A.-^hburton treaty, containing an extradition article; and one with France in 1843, and with 
Jivcrs Powers since. Now, what do these treaties provide with regard to foreigii State.s? That we 
shall deliver up fugitives from such countries, upon such evidence of their guilt being produced as, if 
the oflfence had been committed here, would justify their commitment for trial; and iii 1848 we passed 
an act of Congress for the purpose of carrying into effect these extradition treaties; and by the second 
section of that act it is provided that, upon any investigation had under the act, sworn copies of affi-> 
davits taken abroad may be used as evidence. 

And who is the officer, under these extradition treaties, to whom this jurisdiction is submitted? A 
commissioner, appointed by the circuit court of the United States. Now, all that we ask is, that 
there shall be such a bill providing for the surrender to us of fugitive slaves, upon the making out of 
such a (•».»€— a prima facie case — ^a case in which such evidence shall be produced before the commis- 
sioner, as, if it were a pro.sccution, he would fully commit the party for trial; .such evidenc-? as will 
shew the fugitive to be prima facie subject to the authority of the person who claims him, belonging to 
him, and owing him service or labor. Now, sir. are we not entitled to so much as this.' Is it not an. 
indio-niiy to ofter us les.^.' Upon what principle should less be offered to us? Are we to be told that 
our judicatures are not to be trusted? that we will not administer justice? that we are in the habit of 
suffering persons who are free to be converted into slaves? that freemen may be kidnapped, introduced 
among u.s, held among us as slaves, and refused redress by our courts and our laws? That is the 
o-round. It i.s direct, wanton, inexcusable insult upon the character and the judicature of every 
Southern StaU'. Upon what possible pretence can a discrimination be made? Great Britain or 
France sends here and demands that a certain person found among us shall be delivered up. to be 



tried for murder, or for an assault with intent to commit a murder. We do^,Tiot pretend to requirt 
full proof of guilt. We agree that, upon such evidence being produced as would justify and require 
commitment for trial here, the party demanded shall be delivered up to the foreign jurisdiction. Will 
you require more before you restore fugitives from labor to the jurisdiction of one of the States of the 
Union from which they have escaped ? 

iVIr. President, such discrimination is in itself too insulting to be borne. The bill we want is not 
such a bill as the amendment to the one upon your table, proposed by the honorable Senator from New- 
York, (Mr. Seward.) What is his bill, sir.' Why, it has provisions for a jury trial. It has provi- 
sions for continuance, with its arrangements for bail bonds — bonds for prosecution and appeals. 
It is upon its face an invitation, an encouragement, to accumulation of expense and procrastination of 
trial. How must it be considered by us ' Is it not a plain "keeping of the word of promise to the 
ear and breaking it to the hope?" Is it any thing less or more upon its face than the confession of a 
duty, accompanied by a plan carefully and studiously arranged to prevent the duty from being per- 
formed ? Is it not worse than an open denial ? That would at least be manly; but by this bill you say, 
I acknowledge I am under this constitutional obligation, but I will provide for its discharge by such 
means as will render that discharge impossible or worthless. To refuse us any remedy will be merely 
an injury ; this is to complicate the injury with insult. It is to suppose that we are weak enough to 
imagine that such a measure can be sincerely designed to secure to us our' properly. It is to suppose 
us so stupid as not to be able to see through the most shallow artificeor detect the most clumsy device 
for concealment. Now, whether it is so designed or not, that is the way in which it must be regarded 
by the Southern people of this country, especially when ihey recollect that in 1793 your ancestors, the 
great men of the country, who aided in forming this very Constitution, recognised the right of the 
South, the right of slaveholders at the South, to have their slaves delivered up on a summary in- 
vestigation by an examining court, placing their right upon the same footing with the right of a State 
demanding one who is amenable to her justice. I have no hesitation in saying that, for one, .sir, I am. 
againstany such measure as that proposed by the Senator from New York. And if it were possible 
that this miserable expedient to hold out the show of relief, while all effectual relief is refused, could 
be incorporated into the bill before the Senate, I must unquestionably vote against its passage and re- 
sist it in every shape. However our understandings may compare with those of our Northern friends,, 
let me assure them that we are neither stupid nor foolish, but know very well that a protracted litigation ' 
in New England, New York, or the Northwest country, to be extended from one to three years, in 
such an investigation, and the result to depend upon an unanimous verdict in favor of the claim of the 
master, holds out an illusion to our hopes so thin and transparent that none but fools or madmen can 
take it for a reality. All we ask, Mr. President, upon this subject, is the same regard for the rights of" 
slaveholders that was given in 1793 — the same respect for an allowance of the impartiality of our 
laws, and their true and faithful administratioa, which are now extended every day to foreign Powers, 
with whom we have made extradition treaties. It is, sir, that we shall have extended to the one class 
of cases, the same summary, prompt, and effectual remedy which the Constitution intended, and which 
the act of 1793 extends to the other class; that those who are held to labor among us and escape shall 
be sent back again in precisely the same summary manner as those who are charged with ofi'ences 
among us and escape ; and that our jurisdiction shall finally determine whether the charge be a true 
one in the one case, and the claim of service will be well founded in the other. I have taken more time 
ujion this matter, Mr. President, than under other circumstances I should be warranted in taking, be- 
cause I feel that it is right that our Northern friends should understand this matter to be of th<j very 
highest importance. If this cannot be conceded to ms, then, as to restoring feelings of confidence, as 
to making us understand or believe, in the Southern country of the United States, that our Northern 
friends and fellow-citizens are generally disposed to do us justice, 1 do not hope or expect it from any 
other measure. This is fundamental ; this a plain right ; here is an evident constitutional duty. He 
who openly refuses to discharge it, declares thathe regards neither the Constitution nor good faith. He. 
who undertakes to discharge it but in such a manner as to evade a faithful execution of the duty, does, 
worse; for he trifles with both Constitution and good faith, under pretence of respecting and obeying 
them. 

Now, Mr. President, I have submitted these views to gentlemen, and those only, who hold them- 
selves bound by constitutional obligations. If the sentiments uttered upon this subject by the honor- 
able Senator from New York (Mr. Seward) the other day are the sentiments of this body, I should 
not, and if I believed them to be the sentiments of this body, I certainly would not, have spent my time 
in submitting any remarks to the Senate. And if the sentiments he has avowed here are the senti- 
ments of the Northern people generally — if he speaks even the opinions and feelings of the great ma3& 
of his constituents in New York — I say it is in vain to expect that mutual attachment and concord 
can be restored between the different portions of this country. What does the Senator say ? 

"We deem the principin of the law for the recapture of fugitive slaves unjust, UDconstitulional, aud immoral ; and 
thus, while pairioiism withholds its approbation, ihe consciences of our people condemn it. You will say that these 
convictions of ours are disloyal. Grant it for the sake of argument. They are nevertheless honest; and the law is to 
be executed among us, not among you ; not by us, but by the federal authority. Has any Gouernmcnl ever succeeded 
in changing the moral convictions of its subjects by force ? Bui these convictions imply no disloyalty We reverence 
the Constitution, although we perceive this defect; just as W9 acknowledge the splendor and the po\Yer of the aun^al- 
thnugh its surface is lurnished with here and there an opaque spot. 

" We cannot, in nur judgment, be either true Christians or real freemen, if we impose on another a chain that we' 
defy all human power to fasten on ourselves. You believe and think otherwise, and doubtlessly with equal sincerity. 
We judge you not, and He slone who ordained the consei^'iices of man and its laws of .iction can judge ub. Do we, 
then, in thi^ conflict, demand of you an unreasonable thing in asking that, since you will have properly that can and 
will exercise human powers to uflecl it..; escape, you shall be your own police, uul in acting among us as such yoK 
shall coiiforin to principles indispensable to the security of admitted rights of freemen.' Jf you will have thi.5 law exe- 
cuted, you must alleviate, not increase its rigors.'' 



10 

"The Consiitution regulates our stewardsliip ; the Constitution devotes the domain to union, to justice, to defence, 
to welfare, and to liberty. ' •■' 

" But there is a higher law than the Constitution, which regulates our authority over the domain, and devotes it to the 
same noble purposee." 

Now, sir, here is a distinct announcement, impossible to be misunderstood, that, though the per- 
sons for wlioni the Senator speaks reverence the Constitution, yet they consider a law for the sur- 
render of fugitive slaves passed in pursuance of tiie Constitution as a violation of the Constitution, and 
as immoral! Here is a distinct announcement that they consider it as a discharge of the high duties 
of hospitality, when tliey receive our fugitive slaves, entertain them, and withhold them from us. Here 
is an open and direct encouragement on the |iart of the Senator from New Yurk, (Mr. Seward,) 
for slaves to escape to the freemen of the North, and for Northern freemen to aid them in escaping. 
He assumes, then, that all will be received with open anns, and that the freemen of the North will be 
considered as having therein discharged the high duty of hospitality. Now, sir, if that is the case, 
how perfectly idle it is for gentlemen to talk about respecting the Constitution! He who obeys the 
Constitution only in what he thinks riglu, does not obey the Constitution at all — he but follows his 
own inclination; and /le who, having taken an oath to support the Constitution, refuses to obey it 
because he thinks there is some "law above the Constitution" which forbids slavery, places himself 
in the same position — taking fbr his guide his own individual judgment and opinion, above and against 
the Constitution, which he can rightfully do only after surrendering the office he holds, and which 
he holds on the condition which that oath implies and intends to enforce. Here, sir, is a key to open 
the mind of the public to the honorable Senator's bill. His purpose is to extend hospitality to 
fugitive slaves. He announces it to be immorality to surrender them; and he then comes here and 
presents an amendment to the bill for the delivery up of fugitive slaves, which, of course, must be 
intended to carry out the views which lie has aniiounced upon this subject. Such a position is inde- 
fensible; it is immoral. Talk about morality! Immoral for a man to hold a slave! Immoral for a 
man to do what the associates of Paul, and James, and John did! Immoral for a man to do what 
the wisest and best men that .ever lived upon the earth have done; and not immoral to open your arms, 
contrary to the express stipulations of tlie Constitution, to the fugitive slaves of your neighbor; to re- 
ceive them, protect them, and throw around them such contrivances for makmg their escape effectual 
as no ingenuityshall be able to disentangle, andat thesametime to taunthim with the declaration, "you 
are made your own police officer !" I have said, Mr. President, if these are the sentiments and feel- 
ings of the people of the North, generally — if the Senator from Nov/ York (Air. Sewaud) knows and 
truly expresses their opinions and purposes, it is impossible harmony can be restored and the 
Union preserved. For one, sir, though by no means extreme upon this subject — quite the contrary — 
I have no hesitation in declaring, if this is the general sense and belief; if this is the code of morals ; 
if this is the feeling of integrity which influences our Northern fellow citizens, directly or indirectly, 
to set aside constitutional obligations, and deprive us of the property which we liold ; if this is the pur- 
pose that is to be carried out, it is scarcely desirable that we should remain in the tJnion. For what 
does that state of things imply? It implies this: that the States are associated together under a com- 
mon Constitution, binding them to discharge towards each otlier certain duties, according to the terms 
of the Constitution; and yet you say to us, " We intend to discharge just the amount of duty to- 
wards you that we please — for we reserve to ourselves the right of deciding when any thing required 
of us is opposed by moral obligations, and, having so decided, to refuse its performance — while we 
liold you to the discharge of every obligation imposed by the letter and spirit of the Constitution." 
How could our connexion be long maintained under this state of things, with no public faith, no sense 
of private obligation on the one side to induce, and no power on the other to compel, the performance 
of constitutional duties.' We should be left in a condition not only distracting, but dangerous to our 
present rights, whilst political immorality and bad faith would render our future insecure and worth- 
less. Notliing, under such circumstances, could keep us together but a deep sense of the greater evils 
of parting. \Ve should remain united, if at all, not from inclination or duty, but from a stern neces- 
sity ; not from the hope of good in our connexion, but from the dread of the consequences of separa- 
tion. But, Mr. President, f have not the smallest idea in the world that the Senator from New York 
(Mr. Seward) speaks the opinion of the Northern people generally, or the people of any one State in 
the Union. I believe tliey repudiate his sentiments ; they hold themselves morally and conscientious- 
ly bound by the stipulations of the Constitution. I lielieve tliey will stand ready to enforce any law 
which Congress may pass unon this subject. I do not agree with some gentlemen here who have 
said, " Pass what law we will, it will not be executed."' I have a very different opinion — a totally 
different opinion. This law may fail of execution in some instances: every law does. In the execu- 
tion of this law, bias, prejudice, force may perhaps occasionally prevent its rightful results; but I' 
believe that such a law passed by Congress will be as faithfully and generally executed in the New- 
England States ns any law upon our statute book. 

I doubt not thai men there will understand tliat, though they may entertain an opinion tiiat a law is 
wrong, yet as citizens they have no lijht, when called to enforce it, to act upon their individual judg- 
ment of its merits — ju.st as they would understand this : that if one were under sentence of death, 
their opinion that the law was barbarous and the punishment greatly disproportionate to the offence 
would not justify their interference, forcibly or by fraud, to prevent the execution of the sentence, the 
responsibility of enacting the law being not upon them, but ufion those who made it. I believe there 
are many there — the great mass of the people, almost the toial population — quite able and willing to 
apply these obviou.s |>rinciples to the particular subject under our consideration — the recapture of fugi- 
tive slaves. Yes, sir, I have the fullest confidence in the patriotism, the intelligence, the sense of jus- 
tice, and stern integrity of ihe great mass of the people at the North. They will see that whether we 
have slaves or not is no concern of theirs ; iliat if to have slaves be au offence, it is no offence of theirs ; 



11 

tluit if slavery be an evil, they do not endure i:. And if it were wrong in lisel^ voluntarily to surrender 
a fugitive slave who had escaped from his master, yet as honest men and good citizens, they will feel 
themselves bound to carry into eflect a law passed in pursuance of the Constitution of their country — 
a Constitution formed by common and mutual concession, and declaring that such fugitives shall be 
surrendered. 

Why, sir, any other doctrine saps the foundation of society. The principles of the Senator from 
New York render it impossible to count upon the execution of any law. The judge upon the bench 
may say, when called upon to pronounce jud2;ment, that the act of the legislature, which it is his duty 
to enforce, transcends some moral obligation imposed on hun by the law of God. He may say, I 
think the punishment immoral; I am of the opinion that no offence ought to lie punished with death ; 
or. I think this offence ought not to be punished with death. What is he to do, according to the doc- 
trines put forth by the honorable Senator from New York, (Mr. Seward?) I conceive clearly what 
he ought to do; either to pronounce sentence according to the iaw which he has bound himsel^f by 
oath to execute, or to resign his office. But, according to the views put forth by the honorable Sena- 
tor from New York, he might continue to hold the office and appeal from the law of the laml to the 
law of God, and yet claim to be a loyal subject of the State and a faithful administrator of the laws 
of his country, leaving the law unexecuted, while he holds his place and receives his salary. These 
principles destroy the foundations of all law and justice. They give us a fanatical and wild notion, 
that every man in civilized society has a right as "a citizen to make his own judgment a rule of conduct 
paramount to and overruling the law of his country. 

Now, Mr. President, no gentleman v.-ho admits the obligation of the Constitution, %vho admits the- 
obligation of this article of "the Constitution in relation to fugitive slave?, can deny the implied irre- 
sistibly following obligation to carry it into execution, just exactly with the same fidelity, good faith, 
and promptitude as though it contemplated what, in his view, is the most desirable object in the world. 
That is the duty. He is" to execute this great fundamental law faithfully. It is the law to him. He 
swears to be a good and obedient servant to that law, and he ha.s no right to render a less effectual obe- 
dience because he disapproves the object of this particular part of the Constitution. 

Therefore I have submitted these observations to show that, according to the frame of the Constitu- 
tion, and according to the construction put upon it by tho.se who aided in its formation — adopted with 
remarkable unanimity in both Houses of Congress— this is not a case for trial by jury, but a case for 
a preliminary investigation before a magistrate, under prompt summary examination, upon affidavit or 
oral testimony, as the case may be ; to be followed by delivering up the fugitive upon a prima f<itie 
case made to the satisfaction of the officer who has proper jurisdiction of the question. 

In saying, sir, that the redelivery of fugitive slaves is subject to the same rule as the surrender of 
fugitives from justice, and was so treated "by the Constitution, and by theTramers of the act of 1793, 
I did not, of course, intend to say that the cases were, in all respects, in alt stibordinate particulars, 
identical with each other, but that they depended upon the same general principles, and were liable, 
according to the view of the framers of the Constitution and of that act, to a similar mode of proceed- 
ing, and that a clann for the return of a fugitive of either class was not to be submitted to the decisioa 
of a jury. Nor when I said that it was a case to be determined upon prima facie evidence, did I mean 
that It was to be decided upon slight suspicions or remote probability. I meant this: that it was not 
a case to be determined upon what is called technically full proof, or that amount and stringency of 
evidence upon which a final judgment passes, concluding the whole matter of right ; and I mean, sir, 
to say, that to require such proof would be inconsistent with the whole of bur legal notions, and the 
practice of all our judicial tribunals. Juries, are never empannelled to pass upon a question of right 
between parties, except when the determination of that right and the judgment following upon it are 
to be a decisive settlement of the question at issue. Nothing, in my judgmeni, could be more absurd — 
meaning by that term utterly inconsistent with all our legal notions and modes of procedure — than to 
say that a question should be determined by a jury in the State of New York or the Stale of New- 
Hampshire, and a judgment passed upon that determination, and immediaieiy aftcl-wards l>e made the 
subject of re-examination between the same parties in another jurisdiction, where what had been so 
determined would not be admitted, and ought not to be admitted, as even prima facie evidence of the 
truth. The tribunal proposed by the amended bill of the honorable Senator from Virginia (Mr. Ma- 
son) is fair, just, and adequate. It consists of commissioners appointed by the courts of justice, by 
judges separated from all the ordinary influences which rnay pervert the judgments of men; and be- 
cause selected by and amenable to such judges, the com,missioners themselves will be removed from 
such influences. The judges themselves hold their offices by an independent tenure, and have a com- 
pensation beyond the reach of executive or legislative power. Judges living in the free Slates cannot be 
supposed to have any unfair bias against the claimants of freedom, and may safely be trusted with the 
selection of commissioners. These commissioners are not required to give judgment according to the 
mere facts, as sworn in an affidavit, nor are they bound by the form and appearance of- any technical 
evidence. They are to hear and determine the question in a summary way, it is true, but still to hear 
and determine— not upon ex parte evidence, not according to affidavits in a prcs^-ribed form, but upon 
all the evidence submitted by both the parlies. The evidence is to be directed to the three important 
facts in question ; First, is the person claimed a fugitive? Has he actually come from the Slate whose 
citizen claims to have him surrendered? In the next place, the question is to be examined and deter- 
mined, does the person so claimed owe service or labor in the State from which he has fled ? In the 
third place, is that service or labor which he owes due to hini who makes the claim? Upon the estab- 
lishment of these facts to the satisfaction of the commissioner, the surrender is to be made. The surren- 
der is not made upon that degree of evidence on which one charged with crime may be arrested and 
bound over for trial. For that purpose even prima facie evidence is not required, but reasonable 
ground of suspicion is enough. 



12 

Here prima facie evidence seems properly to be called for, and under the bill will be required. But 
full proof is not and ought not to be demandi.d. So far as [ know, it is never required, and, in my 
judement, ought never to be required, except before a tribunal authorized to make a tinal determination 
upon the question, and settle it upon its merits between the parties forever. This proposed enactment 
is, therefore, a well-considered and well-guarded provision, preventing, as far as human foresight can 
Drevent it, all reasonable apprehension of injustice, fraud, or oppression. It is certainly free from the 
objection raised by the honorable Senator from New Hampshire, (Mr. Hale,) that, under its opera- 
tion, a resident person, a citizen of one of the Northern States, might be seized and transferred to the 
South as one held to service and labor there. If a resident or citizen, his residence or citizenship must 
be capable of easy proof before liie commissioner who is to liear and consider all the evidence. 

This bill is by no means so liable to mi.sap])lication to improper purposes as the conventions for the 
extradhion of ciiminals between the United States and foreign countries. See, sir, how easily — more 
easily, certainly, than this bill — these extradition treaties might be used for purposes for which they 
were never designed. In the treaty between Great Britain and the United States, one of the offence* 
for which a fugitive is to be delivered up is an assault with intent to murder. Now, we know that 
accordni^ to the law of that country, as well as our own, an assault made upon a public (jfficer while 
in the discharge of his public duties, if intended to produce death, or likely to produce death, is deemed 
an assault with intent to murder. Suppose, then, that in the midst of the political excitements that 
are continually agitating the popular mind in Ireland — the i)eople of Ireland seeking after what they 
demand as justice from the British Government, what Great Britain refuses to grant them, denying it 
to be justice — there should be committed an assault upon a public officer charged with the execution 

of the laws by an Irish malcontent, wi.^ ..... make his escape to this country; and suppose that 

he is reclaimed upon an affidavit, sworn in Ireland, charging him with the olfence : under the treaty, 
and the law to carry it into execution, he must be surrendered. And, when carried back under this 
charge, what hinders his being put upon trial for a political offence, to which the treaty does not 
extend, and to which this Government never would have consented to extend it? 

I consider, therefore, Mr. President, that the amendment which the honorable Senator from Virgi- 
nia (Mr. Mason) proposes to introduce as a substitute for the bill reported by the Judiciary Commit- 
tee, is, in its general scope and provisions, free entirely from objection. If there are any amendments 
in matters of detail which it may seem to require, they can easily be engrafted upon it. And permit 
me, while I am upon that subject, to say, as I think I can say with confidence, not only for myself, 
but for every Senator from the South, that if there be any portion of that bill liable to just or reason- 
able exception, likely to give opportunity for any successful fraud, to entrap any person who is now- 
free into a state of bondage, or to give encouragement or assistance to kidnappers, we will not only 
gladly support, but shall b6 prompt to propose every proper amendment. Neither we nor our con- 
stituents desire aught but what justly belongs to us. We wish a bill which will insure the return of 
our slaves, and not endanger the rights of freemen. And we look with horror upon every contrivance 
or attempt to bring to the condition of a slave any man who is now free. 

Yes, sir, and I can say, after a practice of more than thirty years at the bar in a slaveholding State, 
that I have never known an instance, that I have never heard of an instance, in which an action was 
brought by a black man against his supposed master, for the purpose of trying the question of freedom 
or slavery, in which tliere was the slightest ground to suspect unfairness or bias against the plaintiff; 
and I may say, on the contrary, tiuit if there be any leaning in the minds of our jurors, it is in favor 
of him who, upon probable grounds, sets up the claim of freedom. I speak with entire confidence of 
these matters, as they are in my own State ; and I presume what is true of North Carolina is true of 
every one of the slaveholding States. 

Several Senators. Certainly, certainly ; every where. 

Mr. Hale. The sympathies of the people are against the law. 

Mr. Bauger. No, sir ; they are in exact accordance with the law. The heart.^ of our people are 
in favor of the right, and the laws secure it; and I wish the iiearts of all the people of the United States 
were m the same pioper condition. 

Sir, I do not know what are the particular provisions in other States ; but in my own, so careful 
are our courts, and so careful have they always been, to prevent undue advantage being taken when 
this question of freedom is raised, that the first thing the courts require i^^, that the master shall enter 
into bond and security that he will not remove the slave from the State, or beyond the jurisdiction of 
the court, until a final decision shall be had, and in the mean time wijl allow him to attend to the trial 
of his cause, and treat liim with humanity. 

This, then, Mr. President, is a provision of law for the recovery of fugitive slaves which we think 
it is aLsolutely necessary siiould be adopted. It is one sulficiently guarded to avoid injustice to those 
who may be falsely claimed as fugitives; and it seems to me sutlicient, if fairly and honestly earned 
into execution — as I doubt not it wiil be — to insure to those who are really owners of slaves that have 
escaped from the State in which they lived, a return of their property to them, and a devolution, if 
there be any doubt in the case, of the ultimate question of freedom upon the tribunal that has proper 
jurisdiction of the subject and rightful authority to settle the question. It is to return this question, 
not to a set of savages, not to a collection of hi^aihcns, not to a people who are insensible to the claims 
of humanity, or tcj the powerful though gentle influence of religion; but to a people as sensible to such 
claims, as ready to ucK'nfiwledge them, as pronqil to discharge ihem. (I claim nothing more for them 
than for our friend.s and fellow-citizens who live in the Northern portion of the Union.) as any people 
on earth. For all this which we ask, we have the guaranty of the Constitution. We rest notour 
claim upon the generosity or magnanimity merely of our Northern brethren — though I feel that we 
might safely rely upon liiese — but we rest it upon strict right; we demand it, and appeal to their 



13 

sense of justice, pledged to us in the fundamental law of the land. It seems to me that, upon every 
view of the subject, this measure should meet with the decided approbation of all friends of the Con- 
stitution, that there should be no attempt to clog the provision with such arrangements for delay and 
expense as must, in the ordinary course of things, render the measure utterly inefficient: useless to 
us for any practical purpose, and calculated only'to irritate and inflame the sore and excited feelings 
of the South by a false show of granting what is in I'act denied. 

Mr. President, with regard to the Wiimot proviso, I will endeavor to reduce what I have to say 
within a narrow compass. 

In the first place, I will remark that my own view with regard to the proper manner of arranging 
this difficulty is, and has all along been, that we should adopt and carry to the Pacific ocean the iVIis- 
souri compromise line. I have thought that it in itself was a just and reasonable settlement, commended 
to us, besides, because it is an old measure — a measure heretofore adopted with practical results of 
peace and quiet to the country, and having therefore as much of that kind of reverence which belongs 
to old thmgs as can well be found in a nation of so recent origin as ours. 

I have preferred it also upon another ground. I believe that our country is too large. I was utterly 
opposed to the extension of our domains which resulted from the treaty with Mexico ; I did my best 
to get that treaty so amended as to exclude all acquisition of territory ; I voted against its ratification, 
because of the acquisition, and for no other rea-son. And, Mr. President, believing that our country 
is too large, believing that our danger lies in an indefinite extension of our hmits, a premature expan- 
sion of our population, a weakening of all the central parts without adding real strength to the circum- 
ference, I should delight in seeing that Missouri compromise line applied, because I believe it would 
close the account of acquisition of territory on the part of our Government forever. If the character of 
territory, which might be acquired north or south of any given line, were fixed so as to fall in with 
the views or interest of either the one or the other portion of the Union, a constitutional majority, in 
my judgment, could never be procured in this body for the acquisition of any territory, north, south, 
east, or west. And, sir, I mention this because I intended to state frankly my own views. I do not 
suppose it within the reach of possibility that any such measure can be adopted. I have no ultimatum 
to propose upon this subject. I go for the adjustment of this question, and for moderating and letting 
down the excitement upon each and every topic connected witli it, so that, if possible, moderate men, 
those who are not extreme, those who do not insist upon pressing their own notions in their ultimate 
extent to actual adoption, may meet together upon a common ground. Now, it seems to me that, 
after what has been said upon this subject by so many able and distinguished gentlemen upon this 
floor, and particularly after the observations made the odier day by the honorable Senator from Mas- 
sachusetts, (Mr. Wkbster,) we ought to be able to unite upon a proposition to drop the Wiimot 
proviso altogether. The honorable Senator from Michigan (Mr. Cass) is clearly in favor of having 
no proviso; but he meets the proviso upon the ground of want of constitutional power to apply it; 
and as others, who may desire to see it applied, do not enter into and adopt his particular view upon 
the subject, of course the opinion and judgment which he gives do not have upon this question the 
weight to which his high and eminent character .so justly entitles him. But from the Senator from 
Massachusetts we have a reason for dropping this odious proviso which may be received and acted 
on by every man, whatever his views of the question of power may be, without violating, in the 
slightest degree, the notions of legal right, or appearing to surrender constitutional authorhyT Now, 
sir, I am one of those who believe in the constitutional power. I have had occasion to say, and have 
endeavored, so far as I was able, to prove it on the floor of the Senate ; I have said it at home ; I have 
said it every where ; I have said it at large mass meetings; and I choose to say it again, because I 
have no concealment upon this subject, and believe that what I aim at can be best accomplished by a 
frank avowal of the truth, so far as I understand it — I have said, and I say again, that Congress has 
the constitutional power to apply the VVilmot proviso to this Territory, and to all the Territories 
that belong to the United States ; I believe that Congress has entire power and jurisdiction over the 
Territories; that we are the supreme lawgiver over them; may dispose of then- institutions as we 
think right, and let in and shutout just whom and just what we' please. But, Mr. President, when 
the power to adopt a measure is admitted, permit me to say that very little is done towards ascertain- 
ing that it is proper that the power should be exercised. An abuse even of an admitted power is not 
only just ground of complaint, but, under circumstances, it may be just as fair and reasonable a ground 
of resistance as if the power exercised were usurped. If our Government were a simple despotism ; 
if all the powers of all its branches were centered in the hands of one single ruler, it could not be said 
on any occasion that he usarperf power ; but if he abused the powers thus confided to him to jiurposes 
of oppression and injustice; if his administration rendered property insecure and life intolerable, be- 
yond all doubt there would be the same right of resistance as if the" power thus unjustly and oppres- 
sively used had been usurped, instead of having been conferred. The one is a case of unjust seizure 
of power; the other is a case of wanton disregard and violation of the confidence upon which the 
power was given. One is violence ; the other is fraud. One is open rapine ; the other is breach of 
trust. 

Now, sir, it has been said, and well said, truly and philosophically said, that "the assertion of ex- 
treme right is always odious." In political matters such an assertion of extreme right, such a resolu- 
tion to do whatever we may lawfully do, to the utmost extent of our power lawfully to do it, always 
ends in despotism. It is a principle in the private business transactions of life that inevitably termi- 
nates in dishonesty. He who sets out in the transactions of life with the fixed, inflexible reso- 
lution always to obtain, to the utmost, everything that is due to him, will ultimately prove that 
tiie maxim is entirely inconsistent with integrity, and will end by seizing things that belong to an- 
other. No power in any Government, and especially in a Government like ours, should be exercised. 



14' 

the existence of which power is denied by many, and tlie propriety of exercising it in a given case Ls 
doubted by still more, unless under the influence of strong reasons, and for the accomplishment of 
justifiable and important ends. If this proposition be true, I ask upon what footing gentlemen can 
propose to apjily the Wiimot proviso to the Territories to which we hope to give a form of territorial 
government? What is the important end which is to be attained as a consequence of it? Gentlemen 
tell us on all hands that in point of fact slavery cannot he established in these Territories. Many 
gentlemen tell us that, in point of law, slavery now stands excluded from those Territories. Weil 
now, sir, I have said, and I say it again, — for 1 do not conceal any views I ma)' entertain upon this 
subject — that I belong to that class of public men who entertain the opinion, and I have a very strong 
con^■iction of its correctness, that the civil or municipal laws which prevailed in tliese ceded Territo- 
ries at the time they passed into our hands, whether such laws relate to the existence or the non-exis- 
tence of slavery or any thing else, continue in force; that they are not repealed by any silent and ne- 
cessary operation of the Constitution, and that they continue until the conqueror, until the United 
States', actine through the legislative department of the Government, shall think proper either to repeal 
or modify those laws, or to commit to some .subordinate legislative authority the power of doing it. But 
there are many gentlemen, perliaps the majority of Southern statesmen, who entertain a different 
opinion from that which I have expressed u|)on this con.stitutional question. They think that these 
laws are superseded by the silent operation of the Constitution, or, at any rate, if nothing is done by 
Congi-ess to put tliem in force, they fail as being a part of those political regulations in the conquered 
countries inconsistent with the seneral .scheme of our fundamental law. 

Now, sir, in this state of divided opinion as to the legal right to consider slaveiy a subsisting insti- 
tution, recognised and protected by law, by the Constitution, in these acriuired Territories — in the 
generally conceded opinion that there is no likelihood, in point of fact, that slavery will ever reach 
these Territories, what motive can be assigned, what reason which addresses itself to the mind of the 
statesman con be urged, why this proviso should be adopted ? It is not a provision which is to accom- 
plish any object — which is to exclude by Us force from the Territory what would otherwise be found 
there. There is. therefore, no end to be accomplished for which it is necessary; there is no result to 
be produced by it that will not come without it. There can, therefore, be no strong or jusiifiaMe rea- 
son for applying it to tliese Territories. And then, if I am correct in the general view which I have 
undertaken to lay down as to the proper qualification upon the exercise of disputed powers, or even ad- 
mitted powers, in a mode exceedingly distasteful to a large portion of the country, it would seem to follow 
clearly, that this Wiimot proviso ought not to be passed. Why, sir, must it not be understood — and can- 
not gentlemen see that it cannot be other wise than understood — by the Southern people of the United States 
as an exercise of a power for the mere purpose of manifesting superiority — as a wan ton doing of that which 
is offensive and at the same time useless — ,\s involving in itself a species of insult and indignity to those 
whose wishes upon this subject are outraged, and outraged causelessly? For one, I think it would be 
less offensive to Southern ])eople, if it wire an admitted fact that, according to the law of Mexico, 
African slavery existed in these Territories, and the Wiimot proviso should then be adopted. That 
would be doing us what we should deem a wrong: but for it some reason might he assigned, and there 
would be an object accomplished by it. You might say, "We deem it of high importance that slavery 
should not exist in these Territories ; but it exists there now, and, without a prohibition, will contin- 
ue to exist; and, however disposed we may be to gratify your feelings in this matter, we cannot sac- 
rifice what we deem an important and overruling consideration to accomplish that purpose."' But now 
the adoption of the proviso stands without reason and without excuse, it is a mere as.«ertion of su- 
periority : it seems to involve in it something of taunt, of insult. It conveys to Southern people 
an impression of unwillingness to gratify their wishes, or save their feelings even, when, by so doing, 
nothing IS lost to the majority and no advantage is gained by us. It is idle for gentlemen to say "we 
mean it not as an in.sult." Tlie proviso is unnecessary, if there is no reasonable :,'round for supposing 
that any thing will be accomplished by it that will not be accomplished without it; and, since you 
know how we must regard it, patriotism, statesmanship, the recognised obligations of good neighbor* 
hood, require you to forbear. 

Now, Mr. President, supposing this proviso to be adopted, the question naturally presents itself, 
how would it be receivfd by the people of th.e Southern States? Of the Southern Stales generally I 
undertake not to speak. Of their sentiments and opinions 1 know nothing, excejn as I gather them 
from what is said by representatives here, and bce them shadowed forth in the resolves of their legis- 
latures and of their primary meetings. But this much is certain; if we may judge from these indi- 
cations, the application of the proviso to these Territories will be considered as a wanton violation of 
the feelings of the South, an insulting exercise of power; and, however it may or may not be resisted 
by outward action, it will be deeply resented in the iiunost feelings of a large portion of the people of 
the South who?e representatives have spoken upon the subject here. 

Nor, Mr. President, must I forget that, in considering the effect which this proviso is likely to have 
upon the condition of the Southern mind, wc must look to what has been said by Northern gentlemen 
in connexion with this subject. Permit me to call the attention of the Senate to a very brief extract 
from a Kpeech delivered in the other end of the Capitol: 

'• In conclii»inn, I havp only to add, that such is my solemn and abidini; conviction ot the character of slavery, that, 
under a full tense cf my responMhillly tn my country and my God, I deliberately viy, txntef disunion, lieitcr a civil or • 
servile wur, better any thing llial Cod in Ins' providence shall send, ihan an extension oftlie hounds of slavi'ry.'' 

Several Si^natoixs. Whose speech is that? 
A Sfnator. Mr. Mann's. 

Mr. Dadckr. Wc have heard much, Mr. President, of the violence of Southern declamation. I 
have most carefully avoided rending the speeches of Southern gentlemen who were supposed to be lia- 



. I Happened, nowever, m the early part ot'this session, and before '.lie o 
be in that body when there were some bursts of feeling and denunciation fr 

inch 1 heard with pain, niortitication, almost with an-uish of mind. But, .-.., ...v..^ 
of feeling; these were passionate and e.xcited declarations; these had everythin» to plead 
being spontaneous and fiery ebullitions of men burning at the moment under a .sense of 



tlier house 
from South- 
But, sir, these 



ble to that charge, 
was organized, to 

em gentlemen, which I heard wi'th pain, niortificadon,'\AlnK.sr\viiiranSl ofniinT 
were bursts offeelin • ■ - - • 

for them as being spunuineous anu nery euumtions of men burning at the moment under a .sense of 
A^rong And where, among these, will you find any thin- equal to the cool, calm, deliberate announce- 
nien of the philosophic mmd that delivered in the other House the passage whifh I have read • "Better 
disunion: better a civ.l or a servile war; better any thing that God in hi.s providence shall send, than 
an extension of the bounds of slavery." 

In other words, it is the deliberate, settled, fixed opinion of the honorable gentleman who made that 
speech, that rather than the extension of the bounds of slavery one foot— yes, sir, there is no cmalificii- 
tion, onejool—he would prefer a disunion of these States; lie would prefer all the horrors of civil 
war; all the monstrous, untold, and almost inconceivable atrocities of a servile war: he would pile the- 
^th with dead; he would light up heaven with midnight conll.igrations; all this, yea and nio-v— all 
t.ie vials of wrath which God in his providence might sec fit to pour down on us he would suffer,, 
rather than permit, not one man who is now free to be made a slave— that would be extravagant 
enough— but rather than permit one man who now stands upon the soil of North Carolina a slave, to 
stand a slave upon the soil of New Mexico! 

^es, sir, here is a sacrifice of life and happiness, and of all that is dear to tlie black and while races 
together, to a mere idealism— a sacrifice proposed by a gentleman who claims to be a philosopher, and 

to speak the language of calm deliberation— a sacrifice of our glorious Union proposed hv a patriot 

not rather than freemen should be made slaves— not rather than the condition of even one huniaii beino- 
should be made worse than it now is— but rather than one man shall remove from one spot of the earth 
to another without an improvement of his condition, without passing from slavery to freedom. Sir 
alter that announcement thus made, which I beg to say, .sir, I did not seek— for the speech 1 have 
never read; the extract I found m one of the newspapers of the day- afier that announcemen!, talk 
not of Southern violence, talk not of Southern egotism, talk noi of our disposition to sacri-ice to our 
peculiar notions and our peculiar relations the peace and happine.ss, the growincr prosperity, and the 
mutual concord of this great Union. Now, sir, if that announcement goes abroTid into the Southern- 
country, attended by this v.-anton application of the Wilmot proviso, an irritatin- commentary upoi> 
that patriotic announcement, what can be expected > What but the deepest emotions of indi^niation in 
thebosoms of those born and brought up where slavery exists, and taking totally difierenl views of' 
tne institution from those which are taken by the honorable jrentleman who has placed himself upon 
this cool and deliberate, humane and philosophical, position."' 

Sir, we know, with regard to two or more of the Southern States, emphatic pledges have been given, 
through their legislatures, that some mode of resistance to this proviso will be adopted. Now what 
is to be the result of the Nashville Convention which has been called for June next should that body 
assemble and find matters m their present condition? If no bill shall have passed to do us justice by 
affording, as far as the law can afford it, the effectual restoration of fugitive slaves; if a bill shall have 
passed, or be likely to pass, with the insult of the Wilmot proviso causelessly and wantonly inserted 
in It, after the announcement made in the extract of the speech which 1 have just read— after the an- 
nouncement made by the Senator from New York, that so far from there being an obligation 'o restore 
to us our fugitive slaves, the duty of hospitality requires that they shouhl be received, kept, and re- 
tained from us; that the constitutional law which requires their restoration to us is contrary to the law 
of God, and not binding m conscience ; and, still more, that those who visit our shores, comin" under 
the protection of the American flag within our jurisdiction, and there, in violation of oi'tr lawsrseduce 
our slaves from us, and carry them to the North, shall not be surrendered up as fu<Wtives fro:n justice, 
oecause the same high and overruling law which puts the Constitution down, and makes it a iuillity, 
has converted what we call a crime into a high and meritorious act of duty— of this convention, meet- 
ing under such circumstances, what may be. what jirobably will be, the consequence? I say it not 
becau.se I wish ii— I do not wish it; the conviction has been forced upon my miiivi by evidence re- 
luctantly received; and therefore I wish my friends around me to pay, for that'reason, the more credit 
:o what I say— if that convention shall meet under such circumstances, in my juiio-ment the Union is 
from that day dissolved. I do not say that dissolution will follow instantly ; I do'not say but n con- 
nexion, an external Union may be maintained, and linger on for u few years lon>^er: but "the meelino- 
o! that convention wdl be to our institutions, in the language of Napoleon, "Ihe be-^innin-^ of the 
end; 'it will be the initiative step in such a course of measures, North and South, as will result in 
convulsing us so far that the ills to which we fly cannot, in our jud<rment, exceed those we Oear- and 
thus will put upon the people of the South the necessity, the painful, hard necessity, of a dissolution 
a final separation. Now, sir, why do I take this view? In the first place, the meetino- of the Nash- 
ville Convention is, upon its face, a .step towards a separate and distinct organization of the Southern 
btates. Ihe very movement separates them for a time, in purposes and intent, from the <^reat mass 
of the population of the country. They meet there for what purpose ? To consider, to defiberate to 
debate— what? What course of action shall by mutual agreement be taken by the States whom this 
convention will represent; what manner of resistance; what mode of redress? Now, sir, in all mat- 
ters of this kind, m all revolutions, in all breakings up of the ties which bind us loo-eih'er, the first 
step IS tlie great difficulty. It is so even in social and private life ; it is so in the manTed state. The 
first wanton and jiublic outrage on the part of one towards the other of the parties is easily followed 
by such steps as end in total and thorough estrangement. Well, then, suppose no measures are pro- 
posed which look to a se|iaration of the Union— as I have no rca.son to suppose that any will be proposed 
looking to that as an object— 1 fully believe that that convention in Missi-ssippi which terminated its: 




16 

session in the call for this convontion was influenced by lii2;h and patriotic motives, seeking to 
preserve and not to destroy the Union. If I wanted any thins; to satisfy me of that, (besides 
other reasons which I have,) the very fact that the convention was presided over by the venerable 
and venerated Chief Justice Sharkey, a most learned jurist and patriotic gentleman, would be sufficient 
for me. But when we have ascertained what people design by any particular movement, we are far, 
very far, from having ascertained what they may accornplish by it. Now, suppose this meeting 
should resolve that, by a common concurrence of the States represented, laws should be passed, police 
regulations be adopted in those States, of the most irritating and offensive kind towards the Northern 
portion of the Union : such a course will not appear surprising, if we bear in mind the fact that slaves 
are constantly taken from our ports by the vessels that visit them for the purpose of commerce ; that, 
thus taken, thev are withheld from us, and their seducers are neither discountenanced at liome, nor 
restored to us for punishment ; and that a flagrant wrong on one side naturally provokes to measures 
at once of protection and retaliation from the other. But, Mr. President, the moment these States, 
by mutual compact and agreement, have come to a resolution to adopt a particular course of measures 
upon tliis sul.-ject, they have left the platform of the Constitution ; they are no longer upon it, because 
the Constitution expressly forbids v. State to enter into any compact or agreement with another State 
without the consent of Congress. When this first step is taken, the process is easy, and need not be 
traced to a final dissolution of our present Union. And, therefore, in the event of the meeting of this 
convention, with the slavery auestion in the situation I have mentioned, I have, I repeat, gloomy ap- 
prehensions of what may be, and most probably will be, the result upon the destinies of our country. 
Force, Mr. President, cannot keep the States of this Union together— cannot preserve the constitu- 
tional Union. I distinctly admit what was said by the honorable Senator from Massachusetts, (Mr. 
Webster,) that no State has a right to secede from this Union. I distinctly admit that the Constitu- 
tion, looking to perpetuity, makes no provision, directly or indirectly, for the separation of its parts. 
But, in point of fact, from the very nature of our institutions, the States cannot be kept in union by 
force. The majority, or the most powerful viortion, may conquer and reduce to subjection the other; 
but when this is done, the States are not in union, the constitutional connexion is not restored. It is 
but the spectacle of a conquered people submitting to superior power; and no ties of affection, no co- 
operation in a common government, no . J?Hfri«m union can reasonably be hoped between the conquer- 
ors and the conquered. Believe me, sir, if ever, the unhappy hour should arrive when American blood 
is shed in a contest between the States, some desiring to secede, and the others endeavoring to compel 
them by torce of arms to remain in the Union — whenever that hour comes, our connexion is imme- 
diately broken to all beneficial purposes for the happiness or prosperity of the country. 

Now, Mr. President, with regard to my own State. Should this proviso be adopted, and should 
satisfaction not be given in the other particulars which I have mentioned, will North Carohna join in 
resistins, in any mode, the action of this Government? Will she unite in measures for secession, for 
revolution, or for retaliatory legislation .' I am so far, sir, from undertaking to speak upon this sub- 
ject for the South, which I wish to be understood now and always as disavowing, that I do not feel 
"myself even empowered to speak what will be the judgment and conduct of my own State. As was 
well said the other day by my friend and colleague, (.Mr. Mangum.) in presenting some resolutions to 
the Senate, disunion is a question which we cannot discuss here as one for Senatorial action. We 
are sent here to represent the State under the Constitution, and to discharge ordinary legislative and 
executive duties, which presuppose the Constitution to be entire and in full force. We of course 
have no delegated authority to speak the views of North Carolina upon any such question as that 
which I hi-.ve just stated. Last year the legislature of my State passed a .series of resolutions, in 
which, after expressing in very strong and decided terms the sen.se felt by the people of that State of 
the wrong of the Wilmot proviso, and other kindred measures, they nevertheless adopted an 
extract from the Farewell Address of Washington, embodying the sentiment that we were not 
to look upon the Union as in ami event to be abandoned. Making all proper modifications of that 
large and 'most comprehensive expression, "in any event," it could have no less interpretation than 
this, that none of the events alluded to by the preceding resolutions would furnish ground lor the 
abandonment of the Union. Since that time this matter has been much discus-sed in North Carolina; 
primary meetings have been held ; different resolutions have been passed by those meetings, some dis- 
countenancing and declinin? to be represented in the Nashville Convention, others approving Uie call, 
and resolving'to send delegates ; and one meeting, with a somewhat singular inconsistency, while pro- 
testing agaiiist a Government of unlimited powers, solemnly pledged itself to adhere to, abide by, and 
support whatever the Nashville Convention shall determine. 1 hope, sir, that North Carolina would 
not concur, on account of the passage of the Wilmot proviso, in any measures for the dissolution of 
the Union or resistance to the Government. My own opinion is, that it would furnish no sufficient 
ground for such a procedure. I say that here : I shall say it at home when the proper tunc arrives, 
if a time should ever arrive when it shall be necessary to say it. But this I .say, also, that I shall 
feel — if such an event as the adoption of the proviso should happen— tliat a serious indignity has been 
offered to us r not, perhaps, designed— I will not charge any with a deliberate design to insult— but 
yet an indi^^nity, because such must be the wanton adoption of an objectionable and useless measure, 
after distinct notice that it will be considered in that light. And rely upon it, sir, that whatever may 
be the result in regard to any external action of the people of the Southern States, if something satis- 
factory is not done respecting; fugitive slaves, and if the application of this Wilmot proviso is insisted 
upon, there will be left in the hearts of our people a rankling sense of injustice and offence. They 
will have less of hope in the future opcratimi of the Constitution. They will feel, to a certain extent, 
a painful conviction that the large majority of the inhabitants of the free States have not that sympathy 
with their feelings and regard for their rights, that justice and moderation in the exercise of known 



powers, and tliat abstinence from tlie needless exercise of doubtful and questionable ones, which are 
so essential to keep the mind of the country united; and, unless our minds arc united, the forced as- 
sociation of reluctant communities, who stay together not to obtain good from their connexion, but to 
avoid the evils of separation, does not deserve the name of Union. 

Mr. President, I am sorry that I have occupied the Senate so long. I will endeavor to draw the 
few remaining remarks I have to make to a speedy close. I have submitted with entire frankness the 
views which 1 entertain. I believe, conscientiously l)elieve, that tliere is in the Northern States of the 
Union a sincere attachment to the Constitution, a ifirm adherence to the compromises of the Constitu- 
tion, and a just consideration for the rights and the feelings of their Southern brethren. And I have 
a strong hope, an abiding confidence, that these sentiments will, on every proper occasion, be mani- 
fested by the great body of inhabitants in the free States. If I thought otherwise, I should be with- 
out hope, and should be inclined to consider my birth an event to be deplored, as imposing upon me 
the necessity of witnessing the utter destruction of my country. But, sir, let a proper bill for the re- 
capture of fugitive slaves- be passed, let this Wilnint proviso be dropped, (and, if possible, sink into 
insignificancy and oblivion,) and I am willing to deal with every question before the Senate in the 
utmost liberality of compromise. Yes, sir, I have no objections to compromise. The Union sprung 
out of compromise. The Union is supported by a legislative compromise — a compromise incorporated 
in the fundamental law, the Constitution. Springing out of compromise, this Union can only be pre- 
served and made to promote the great and good ends designed by and hoped from it, by our carrying 
on the Government habitually in the spirit of compromise. In that view, sir, 1 am willing to with- 
draw all objection to the admission of California, with or without an alteration of her limits as settled 
by her constitution. And when I say that, Mr. President, permit me to say that I make a great 
sacrifice. Sir, I occupy the same po.sition with regard to California now as I did at the last session. 
The honorable Senator from Mississippi, now in his .seat, (Mr. Davis,) knows that I was with him 
upon a committee charged with the subject of admitting those Territories as States. I announced to 
him at once that I was totally and absolutely opposed to their adrnission in any form, and with any 
subdivision of territory. I have heard nothing to remove the objections I then entertained ; but in 
the manner of the organization of the government there I find additional objections, strong in them- 
selves, and giving additional force to those which I had before. And if I could believe that the views 
expressed by the Senator from New York (Mr. Sewaru) the other day upon this subject are the 
views entertained by the people of California, or by the gentlemen who are sent here to represent 
them, my objections would rise almost to an insurmountable repugnance, to a perpetual opposition ; 
for that Senator has not hesitated to tell us in substance that we have no choice about admitting Cali- 
fornia ; that she is a State, and a State she will continue, irrespective of any act of Congress; that she 
comes here and demands admission into this Union, and, if not admitted here, our authority will be 
cast aside, and she will be an independent republic upon the Pacific. But, sir, I cannot believe, and 
do not believe, that such an insolent dictation to us is designed by the people of Calit'ornia. And I 
personally know the iv/o gentlemen whom she has selected as Senators, and am sure they would be 
the first to disown and renounce the position assumed by their patron upon this floor. 

The honorable Senator from New York (Mr. Skward) seems to consider the admission of California 
as a matter lieyond all price and all value, to be attained at every hazard and every sacrifice, and there- 
fore — notwithstanding the opinion he has expressed with regard to slavery, though he considers it a 
high, hospiUible duty to entertain the fugitive slaves from the South, and to keep them from their mas- 
ters; though he has a holy horror of the extension of slavery into the Territories now free, and con- 
siders every obligation imposed by the Constitution in reference to slavery overborne and annulled by 
the supreme law of God — he tells'us, that so all-important is this admission of California, under the 
circumstances, that he would have voted for her admission with an express recognition by her consti- 
tution of the right to carry slaves into her territory. An allusion to this subject seems to have a strange 
effect upon the Senator from New York. He is carried back at once to the last session, when certain 
measures were pending here for the purpose of organizing some temporary government for California 
and New Mexico; and alluding to the gentleman who is now the source of power and patronage in 
this Government, he thus expresses himself: 

"May this republic never liave a President commil a more serious or more dangerous usurpation of power tlian the 
aciofttie present eminent CliieflVIagistrale, in endeavoring to induce the legislative authorities to relieve liiin from the 
exercise of military power, l)y estahfishingsivil institutions, regulated by law, in a distant province. Rome would have 
been standing this day if she had had such generals and such tribunes." 

Yes, sir, if Pcome had been blessed with a Zichary Taylor tor commander of her armies; if Rome 
•had been blessed with a Zichary Taylor for a tribune, the Goths, the Vandals, and the Fluns, Attila 
and all his hordes, would have poured upon the empire in vain — they would have been rebelled, over- 
come upon the embattled plain, and driven back to their fastnesses in the North, and Rome would 
stand this day proud mistress of the world ! Now, sir, whether the President of the United States can 
swallow such adulation as this, I will not undertake to decide; but such is my estimate of his intelli- 
gence and his merit, of his rnodesty — a just modesty, which usually accompanies true merit — that I 
believe he has no powers of deglutition sufficient to get it down. 

I have said, Mr. President, that I should make a great sacrifice in my vote for the admission of Cali- 
fornia; yet I will make the sacrifice, not grudgingly, but cheerfully; and, as said by the Senator from 
Michigan (Mr. Cass,) the other day, if asked " what would I do to restore harmony to the country, 
and make this .still a united and happy people," I would answer like him, " I scarcely know what I 
would not do to accomplish such an end." 

Mr. President, I feel the importance of this great subject, and my utter want of powers to treat it as 
iit deserves. I wish to excite or to irritate the angry feelings of no section of this country; I am con- 



I 



scious, ill my own bosom of no sentiment towards any portion of my countrymen, except one of res- 
pect ami cordial t\ttachment. But I may be permitted tn except from this general declaration those 
mischievous associations in the northern pin-t of tiie United States, which, to our injur)', and to the 
great and permanent injury of the unforiunate slaves among us, have been, with an unholy pertinacity, 
agitatino; the subject of tiiis domestic uistitution of ours for the last fifteen years. Towards them, even, 
I trust I have no feeling of hatred. For every portion of ilie American people — I care not whether in 
the East or West, the Nortli or South — I have the iieart and hand of a brother. There is no gentle- 
man upon this floor, among my immediate associates around me, no gentleman upon the other side of 
the chamber, for whom I have not always manifested a proper personal consideration and kindness. 
But I wish to make our Northren friends aware of the danger to which we are exposed. My own 
views have never been extreme — my position has ever been moderate; and I trust some credit will be 
given me when I declare my deliberate judgment, that consequences the most serious, even the most 
•calamitous, may follow a particular disposition of this subject by the present Congress. If it .should 
be believed throughout the Southern country that sentiments which we have heard here uttered are the 
sentiments of the whole body of the North, every desire to remain together would sink in Southern 
hearts. We would be together, then, not from love or affection, not from the hope of happiness or 
improvement; and if we would rernain united at all, it would be solely from dread of the greater and 
darker calamities that might follow our separation. If this subject is met in a proper spirit, it can be 
easily settled and adjusted. So far as I am concerned, I am willing to meet upon any reasonable 
ground. I am willing to yield much that 1 wish, to do much for which I have a strong and serious 
repugnance. 

I call upon every conservative gentleman in this body, every one from a free State who desires to 
perpetuate the institutions of his country in their true spirit and character, who wishes not to convert 
our Union into an af:sociaiion of discordant and discontented parts, held together by dread or force, 
but to preserve us one people, united in heart and affection — I call upon him to meet us upon the 
ground of kindnc-^.-, comprornise, and conciliation: I say to him, drop this odious proviso — a measure 
powerful fo.- evil and impotent for good; let it not have an immortality of mischief; give us secu- 
;uty for the restoration of our fugitive slaves; admit California as you wish, and if vou choose to 
abolish in the District of Columbia this foreign slave trade — this conversion of the seat of Government 
into a general mart for the slave dealers of the surrounding States — I say .-ibolish it. Mv colleague 
(Mr. Man-glm) and myself both stand ready to vote for it. Permit me, sir, to say to our Northern 
friends, that if they suppose Southern gentlemen to be wedded to anj^ of the adventitious evils or 
abuses of slavery — to be unwilling to correct excesses, or disposed to support cruelty or to jiatronize 
inhumanity — they do us great injustice. Upon the rights of property we stand ; these we consider 
sacred ; and from our support of them we cannot be moved. Bilt, saving these, make what regula- 
tions of police the occasion may require, and I will not only submit, but will give to them my hearty 
concurrence and approbation. 

Mr. President, it cannot be — I will not believe it — nothing but demonstration, nothing but the ac- 
complished fact shall satisfy me — that we have so degenerated from our .sires of the revolution as not 
to be able harmoniously to adjust the questions before us. It cannot be that the true spirit of conces- 
sion and compromise is fled ; that idealisms have taken the place of constitutional obligations and 
kindly feelings ; that i^anaticism has dethroned reason, and the Union, the work of our noble fathers,, 
just as it has well commenced its onward progress to a future of real glory and power, is to be broken 
to pieces by the rude hands of agitation, by cabals abroad or intrigues at home, contrary to the gen- 
eral sentiment and earnest wish of the great mass of the people. Sir, wc have had offerings made here 
for the preservation of this Union from every quarter of this chamber. Often and nobly have they 
been made by the distinguished Senator from Michigan, (Mr. Cass ;) firm, steady, constant, and true 
in this cause has my friend from New York, on the other side of the chamber, (Mr. Dickinson-,) at all 
times been. The distinguished Senator from Kentucky, (Mr. Clay,) in his late earnest and patriotic 
efforts, has added another laurel to the immortal chaplet that binds his brow ; and but a few days since, 
the great expounder of the Constitution, (Mr. Webster) — that man of mighty mental and moral power 
— closed the list of great names engaged in this holy cause in a speech so clear in expression, so compre- 
hensive in patriotism, .so noble in self-devotion, that could we doubt the success of these united eiforts 
for harmony and conciliation, we must needs believe that, for some inexpiable crime, God has visited us 
with judicial blindness, pre))aratory to the outpouring of his righteous indignation upon our country. 
Sir, I will not believe this — I do not, I will not despair of a cause so good. On the contrary, I trust that 
we shall yet come together on a common ba.^is of harmonious co-operation, and find ourselves able to 
adopt, as the expression not only of a patriotic wish, but of an assured and confident hope, the senti- 
ment made immortal by the great Senator from Massachusetts, " Liberty axd Union, now and- 

FOREVER, ONE AN'D INSEPARABLE." 

LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 



011 898 042 6 # 






^ 



H0LL1^ 
pH i 

MILL RUN 



